Bear Stearns-Part 1
My Republican friends are always telling me that the private sector operates more efficiently than the public sector. They want to privatize everything from Medicare and Social Security to garbage collection. I always tell them that corporate efficiency is a Conservatve myth. Anyone who's worked in Corporate America knows that it's rife with stupidity and inefficiency, that it's largely unaccountable to its shareholders, who vote mostly by proxy, and that if a company is big enough and "venerable" enough the Federal Government AKA The American Taxpayer will bail it's sorry ass out. So much for the "invisible hand."
Witness Bear Stearns.
Bears Stearns was an investment bank. That means it underwrote (provided a primary market for) securities that were later distributed to the secondary market. Much of what it underwrote in the last few years are what are now being called "sub-prime" mortgages. The story Bear Stearns and the Fed wants to tell is that the company's troubles are due to a few dead beats who couldn't make mortgage payments, due to rising interest rates and the poor judgement of the borrower. Bear Stearns and the Fed would like you to believe that they have no culpability in this mess.
That's a lie.
Here's how this really worked.
Commercial banks and other mortgage lenders lowered underwriting standards and underwrote bad loans based on the unreasonable expectation of housing prices continuing to rise at unprecedented rates. The borrowers weren't deadbeats. They weren't a few. They were millions of middle-class borrowers seeking to obtain the American Dream of a private home of their own. They were encouraged by mortgage lenders and realtors to "overbuy." In some cases they were outright lied to about the terms of the mortgage. If they had bought what they could have afforded, no one would have considered them "sub-prime." They were "sub-prime" because they bought more than they could reasonably afford, egged on by realtors and mortgage lenders.
The realtors, banks, and other mortgage lenders made a lot of money on these loans and home sales. The lenders made more money when they got the investment banks like Bear Stearns to buy up their "sub-prime" mortgage paper, securitize it, and issue bonds in the secondary market. Then the investment banks (like Bear Stearns) made a ton of money on underwriting fees and profits when they resold the securities they underwrote in the secondary market. The investment banks (like Bear Stearns) paid exorbitant bonuses to their employees (Harvard and Yale MBAs everyone) who put these crazy deals together.
Then when interest rates went up and housing prices went down, when people who had been seduced (at a profit to their seducers) into buying houses beyond their means could no longer make their mortgage payments and defaults surged, Bear Stearns faltered. They had failed to mark up the bonds backed by the "sub-prime" mortgages sufficiently, and as those bonds dropped in value (as they should have, based on their low quality), Bear Stearns had increasing difficulty obtaining liquidity from other institutional players to maintain the necessary liqudity to pay employees, interest, and outstanding obligations.
Consequently, the value of Bear Stearns stock plummeted and it was forced into a "fire sale" to JP Morgan-Chase with the Fed by their side.
Bear Stearns isn't exactly without culpability here. Nor is the Fed (or Congress and the Bush Administration), which did little to reign in the mortgage crisis in the making.
I hope the lenders, the realtors, and investment bankers who made a ton of money on the way up, have put it away for a rainy day.
Meanwhile, nothing associated with this bail-out saves one home or family.
We have two foreclosures in my neighborhood.
Stay tuned for more on how the bail-out worked and how you're paying for it.
By the way, the guy in the pic is Herbert Hoover, the President who oversaw the onset of the Great Depression.
Reader Comments (9)
Liar loans, zero-down, negative amortization? And they thought it would go on forever? No way.
I also remember looking at big homes nearby, just because the prices were so outrageous we had to see them. Truth be told, we had the resources to buy, but the houses just weren't worth it. Most were bought by people with half our income, I suspect. Using creative financing.
This ain't over yet. Lots of mortgages still have to reset. With this going on, in an election year, we will have lots of excitement. Not the kind we wanted, but it was inevitable. Like Hoover breadlines.
Gary, you have done a good job of identifying the guilty parties and assesing blame proportionately. I would only add a bit to the role of realtors in this, in that they were the ones on the ground and in the best position to "infuluence" bad or reckless decisions, the "trigger men" if you will. Many profited handsomely from their aggessiveness.
Aside from this, there was almost an entire culture, not to mention industry that grew around this house of cards that was being built. Everthing from cable television shows, to real estate investment seminars, to the Big Box building supply stores all had a hand in it, fed off of it and profited from it. Huge residential builders built tract homes in the suburbs as if the market was endless, and for years, it was.
Many very legitimate businesses as well as the economy in general unknowingly participated and benefitted from the boom, but no one was overly concerned, because it was all backed by real estate, something that was not going to "go away".
As a building material supplier, I hesitated on more than one occassion and wondered "where the hell is all of this money coming from?" We all know that everyone was looking for safe investment havens after the dot-com bust and assumed that was what was driving it all. It did start that way, and in the years following the bust there was an "uptick" in speculative building as a safe haven.
But then it was as if someone engaged a supercharger. What had been an increase became a frenzy as money became cheap, plentiful, and almost unrestricted.
What no one knew, including the so called regulators, was the amount of leveraging that was going on, through derivitives and other investment vehicles.
Until it hit the wall.
What is going to be difficult for everyone involved is a return to sanity. The building and housing industry, save the post WWII era has never been a boom industry. Just a return to "good times" is going to be painful. There will be suppliers, contractors, and subcontractors who expanded during the boom that are either going to fail or certainly endure painful and constly restructures.
At the end of the day, it is the regulators, or lack their of, that need to be assesd the majority of the blame it this. The banking and securities regulations that were put in place after 1929 have been steadily eroded since the banking deregulation that began in the 1980's. Before then, the banking system while conservative,was profitable (but not obscenely so) and safe.
This was all done under the pretense of "modernizing" the industry so it could be "competitve". There were those of us that could see this endgame coming as far back as 1980 and bailed at that time.
I wonder if everyone is happy with our modern and competitve banking system today?
I've never cared much for most realtors, to be honest. Much like stockbrokers, and for the same reason. (In fairness, I know two that I trust.) Basically, if they can fan the wild rise in prices, they make more and more money. And they are not the ones who are saddled with enormous loans.
Back in the early 1990's, we kept reading stories in the Washington Post about how baby-boomer demographics and rising energy prices would force big reductions in home sizes. People would double up, and the big houses would go begging for buyers. Exactly the opposite happened, which confounded me. (Although this area is an anomaly because of the Federal Government.)
Are we now looking at that correction, predicted 10-15 years ago? Seems like it to me. The problems have come home to roost, after taking a diversion through la-la land.
I was trying to analyze what changed to allow this debacle, and Jeff, you hit it. It went under my radar, except for the annoyance at my (formerly home-town) bank changing names every few years. With changes in terms, locations, logo colors, and people. The steady erosion of bank regulation, and service. I complained about the reduction in ATM locations, and never heard a word back. Probably because no human being ever read my message.
I don't know anyone at my branch anymore. I used to be able to pick up a phone and call somebody if I had a problem. We would both have the other's face in mind as we talked. Not now -- I'm just a number, despite having my accounts there for 34 years. If I went for a mortgage now, I suspect it would be processed by somebody in India, not Maryland. If they processed it at all.
It is going to be a rough ride.
What really disturbs me though, is that there is almost no outcry to change anything other than to tighten mortgage broker licensing laws. Possibly it is too early, the impetus so far has been to try to lessen the suffering, rather than to identify the cause. But where (aside from the three of us) is the outrage? Are we the only three people who can see what happened? I know that I am not alone in my admiration of the members of the CHS Class of ’69, but for God’s sake, is the air that rarified?
I’ll spare everyone the clichés about human folly being repeated, but I get the sense that most people view the way the scoundrels in this behaved, as acceptable. Could possibly the levels of ignorance, complacency, and apathy have dropped this low? For me that possibility is the more frightening than the consequences of the bust.
This week I picked up the one from my most conservative holding, the Reserve Fund. Bonds and treasuries. Dull, solid, boring, safe. Maybe.
On the first page (with a photo of the head guy) was a long rap about how safe it is, always has been, and so forth. On page 9, I found that they hold almost $3 billion (with a "B") in consolidated mortgage securities with Bear Stearns. A few pages back, they had another $1.5 billion with Bear Stearns. And then I read on, all about the FNMA, Lehman Brothers, CITI, etc. holdings. And lots of firms that are getting their ratings downgraded. Yikes. And this is my safest fund?
How will this affect me personally? Not much, probably. I don't have much in the Reserve Fund. And it won't tank, so far as I know.
What does it tell me? That the effect of this mortgage mess has not really rippled through yet. I looked at the maturity dates of the Bear Stearns notes, and they are off a few years. Could be uglier than we imagine, because the impact has not yet been felt. People are in denial, I think.
Read those little booklets. (We used to call then "red herrings" back in the 70's.) Check your funds. Then try to get a good night's sleep.
But what you're saying is generally accurate and why the fed stepped in. Billions in bonds secured by "sub-prime" mortgages and underwritten by BS and other Wall Street investment banks are ubiquitous. The bonds received ratings from rating agencies (where's Elliot Spitzer when you need him?), that were inappropriate to the risk.Overnight lenders realized this--hence BS's liquidity crunch.
So long as other investment banks don't fail and actually begin making new investments, individual investors should come through this. The actions of the fed were an effort to facilitate this result. I'm relatively optimistic that the fed's actions will work-but what do I know.
I appreciate the reminder. Timely.
I appreciate the reminder. Timely.